[quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157636#msg157636 date=1342202580] take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus. Leo, is NOT a Saint!!!
If a policy is an innovation and against the Tradition then it should not be followed. The BOC is a traditionalist diocese.
Metropolitan Bishoy is not the authority on inter-Church relations. The Holy Synod is and it has already stated that the Eastern Orthodox have the same faith as us.
To chrismate an EO is an offence against our Tradition. To baptise one is against everything Orthodoxy confesses.
I hope that the BOC will continue to resist innovations and seek to preserve the authentic Tradition of the Church of Alexandria.
The last time I checked we were a Church that obeyed the Fathers. They could nit be clearer. To anoint, let alone baptise, an EO is forbidden and is described by St Severus as abominable.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157717#msg157717 date=1342401243] Ian not sure that the point of different faith is getting across.
The EO has different faith than the OO and thus their sacraments are rejected by the OO. Tell that to every single OO Holy synod out there, as all of them (AFAIK) have ratified the agreed statements.
The quote by St. Seuerus has not been provided in context, so no Fr. Peter, I am sorry, it is not clear.
The OO synods have ratified the agreement, the EO have not. There is no such thing as a one way agreement. We can ratify all we want, however, it is not in effect until they sign it as well.
I vote to either start teaching by providing sources with references which we can look up. Otherwise, this discussion is proving to be fruitless and useless, so someone please shut it down.
^I really do not want to get too involved in this discussion. The only point I was trying to get across was that our Hierarchs do accept the sacraments of the EO as being real and it is not his place as a layperson to say something which is contrary to this belief held by all the OO Patriarchates. If we fully accept the sacraments of the EO Patriarchates of both Alexandria and Antioch, we must by corollary accept the Sacraments of those in communion with them. Whether unity should or will happen is another discussion entirely, I am simply stating the teaching of our Hierarchs. I also do agree that all discussion should be brought about using sources.
P.S. And yes I do acknowledge that the two Churches are not in official/canonical communion as of yet.
P.P.S. And I am not saying that we share the same faith and that they have true sacraments absolutely and definitively (though I personally believe this is the case), all I am saying is that our Patriarchates believe they have true Sacraments and they believe we share the same faith and so it really is pointless in saying "their sacraments are rejected by the OO" because they are clearly accepted by the OO at the highest levels of our Hierarchy. I would, however, agree with sifaing in saying that the implications of these agreed statements cannot fully take effect in terms of reunion until the EO Patriarchates ratify them.
The Agreed Statement clearly and explicitly states that we believe the EO to have the same faith as us.
It was the intention of all of our Synods to make this statement and they all have.
If you do not believe me when I speak of the teaching of St Severus, of St Timothy the Great, and of the constant practice of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria until the 20th century then you will not believe any sources I provide.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157734#msg157734 date=1342422459] The Agreed Statement clearly and explicitly states that we believe the EO to have the same faith as us.
It was the intention of all of our Synods to make this statement and they all have.
If you do not believe me when I speak of the teaching of St Severus, of St Timothy the Great, and of the constant practice of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria until the 20th century then you will not believe any sources I provide.
The agreement was only signed by us, the OO. When the agreement was discussed within the EO, it was REJECTED. Why? Because they have a different faith than ours.
So, even though it is signed by us, it is signed according to a different faith than what the E O holds. This means that there is no agreement and we have different faiths.
In my experience, EO have come to the Coptic Church through Chrismation only and not baptism.
Also, I looked at the website of the Southern Diocese of the United States where His Grace Bishop Youssef has a question and answer section.
I found the following question/answer in this section: Question: Does a Catholic or a Protestant (Lutheran) have to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church to be able to marry in the Orthodox Church?
Answer: A Catholic or a Protestant of any denomination (not just Lutheran) has to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox faith. The Coptic Church has recognized the holy Mystery of Baptism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and the (Indian) Malankara). In addition, we have recently made an agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept each other's Baptism. One is baptized according to the faith of the Church he/she is joining. Since the Protestant do not believe in the same doctrines we believe in, (Infant baptism, Holy Sacraments, the position of St. Mary and her perpetual virginity, icons, candles, etc.) their baptism is not recognized in our Church. (emphasis is mine).
I obviously do not speak for His Grace and I do not mean to misinterpret his answer but this answer states we accept the baptism from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seems to support my personal experience and the statement of Jonathan and Fr. Peter.
Please forgive me if I am wrong and if I am further confusing the issue.
imikhail, there is little value in my responding to you.
Your position is not only contrary to the Tradition but it is illogical.
Person A says that this is an Apple
Person B says that this is an Apple
Person B says that Person A says it is an Apple
Person A says that Person B says it is an Orange
Person A and Person B both agree that it is an Apple. They have the same belief.
It is irrelevant how they view each other. We have said that the EO have the same faith. You are obliged to accept this as a universal Synodal statement. It is utterly and completely irrelevant how the EO view us. Though clearly most view us also as Orthodox. The official statement of all the Holy Synods says that they have the same faith and it is not affected by their view of us.
Both chrismation, and especially baptism, of EO are absolutely forbidden by the Tradition. To view the EO as being other than Orthodox with the same faith as us is to reject the teaching of all the Holy Synods and of Pope Shenouda.
Sorry to keep bringing this up: last Sunday in my EO church we honoured the seven ecumenical councils which we see as defining our faith (that was what our priest said in his homily). Now the OO accepts only the first three of those councils. You have a problem when it comes to entering into full communion or even saying you have the same faith. How can the Byzantine tradition churches repudiate any of the councils except as a political expedient? We know that the Coptic church cannot accept Chalcedon so how can this obstacle be overcome. Many 'anti ecumenists' fear a fudge.
we basically believe the contents of these councils. but when they were made, the EO did not consider us fully orthodox so we were not invited to give an opinion. if we had been we would have agreed with most of it and fixed / discussed the few bits they didn't explain well enough in our opinion. the only council the OO disagree with is the one that concluded the OO were not orthodox (would be difficult to agree this!) which was the '4th council' of chalcedon. so there is not that much to fix.
but we must wait and pray for the bishops and clergy and theologians to make progress in this area. the way we (non theologian, non clergy members) can help is by making good friends from the 'other' group, going to their services (without taking communion just yet except in special cases) and by posting our progress on forums. so it is great to see u coming here and promoting orthodox unity and i hope to c u again soon :)
Those who say we have the same faith are mistaken. The EO do not consider us to have the same faith, so I wonder how can some of our clergy say that we do.
I liken this attitude with a sinner whom we tell you are not a sinner and you are in communion with the Church, but he insists that he is a sinner and he rejects the communion.
imikhail I really respect a great deal of your posts and you have personally added much to me in the time i have been on tasbeha.org. (this is also directed to some of the comments of the poster sifaing).
Having said that, i entirely agree with Fortunatus. I think many of you seem to overlook that in dealing with the ever reverent Fr. Peter, you are speaking to a man who has been on the front lines of the discussions (as evidenced by his recent attending an oriental orthodox-anglican dialogue. I like to follow Abouna's life via facebook :D) and has quite close access to His Eminence Abba Seraphim, a scholar of the highest standing and a member of the Holy Synod.
Fr. Peter himself is one of the greatest scholars (ESPECIALLY on this debate) on the planet in my humble opinion and it is perhaps a matter of fact that there is no greater scholar of the Theology, Christology, and teaching of our holy father St. Severus, on the planet.
I would heed caution when treating Father Peter as if his reverence is 'some guy' off the street. Fr. Peter is a scholar of the highest rank and his is the authoritative opinion on the matter, not our interpretation of today's practice (many of which are in error as Fr. Peter has pointed out, and St. Severus is VERY clear on the point of re-anointing). I wish that i would be able to sit at the feet of Fr. Peter and learn for a lifetime but i think God has more meaningful plans for his reverence. :P
I do not mean to offend, just to remind everyone what caliber of individual we are dealing with in Fr. Peter and we are blessed to have him. May the blessing of his service be for us all (pray for me Father!).
I beseech all of you for your prayers for an unworthy servant.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=13480.msg157769#msg157769 date=1342496764] imikhail I really respect a great deal of your posts and you have personally added much to me in the time i have been on tasbeha.org. (this is also directed to some of the comments of the poster sifaing).
Having said that, i entirely agree with Fortunatus. I think many of you seem to overlook that in dealing with the ever reverent Fr. Peter, you are speaking to a man who has been on the front lines of the discussions (as evidenced by his recent attending an oriental orthodox-anglican dialogue. I like to follow Abouna's life via facebook :D) and has quite close access to His Eminence Abba Seraphim, a scholar of the highest standing and a member of the Holy Synod.
Fr. Peter himself is one of the greatest scholars (ESPECIALLY on this debate) on the planet in my humble opinion and it is perhaps a matter of fact that there is no greater scholar of the Theology, Christology, and teaching of our holy father St. Severus, on the planet.
I would heed caution when treating Father Peter as if his reverence is 'some guy' off the street. Fr. Peter is a scholar of the highest rank and his is the authoritative opinion on the matter, not our interpretation of today's practice (many of which are in error as Fr. Peter has pointed out, and St. Severus is VERY clear on the point of re-anointing). I wish that i would be able to sit at the feet of Fr. Peter and learn for a lifetime but i think God has more meaningful plans for his reverence. :P
I do not mean to offend, just to remind everyone what caliber of individual we are dealing with in Fr. Peter and we are blessed to have him. May the blessing of his service be for us all (pray for me Father!).
I beseech all of you for your prayers for an unworthy servant.
I am in direct contact with the clergy who are involved in the dialogue with the EO. I am just reiterating what they said.
It is up to you or any clergy to believe however they want. The bottom line is whether our belief does reflect genuinely the Church's.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157772#msg157772 date=1342499395] The bottom line is whether our belief does reflect genuinely the Church's.
Not it isn't. The bottom line is whether or not theirs does. No one has questioned whether ours does.
It seems like this discussion has become more about persons than about the discussioon.
Fr. Peter, for your sake and for everyone else's sake, I would ask you to just close the discussion.
No one is questioning Fr. Peter's scholarly credentials. But people need to realize that there are other scholars on the front line with EO who disagree with what seems to be the consensus in this discussion. They also reference the fathers and tradition. So they cannot be simply judged as innovative like Some have done here.
No sources have been referenced clearly. So I don't know what people are saying is VERY clear evidence, b/c at this point nothing is clear.
Again Fr. Peter, so that no one falls into temptation, please close this discussion.
I do not wish to argue or present the fathers for criticism and so I will write a paper and make a pidcast to describe the Tradition of the Church, as I did with the issue of the soul after death when some were denying the Tradition on that issue. I shall say no more myself on this thread.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157794#msg157794 date=1342565795] [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157793#msg157793 date=1342565488] I do not wish to argue or present the fathers for criticism and so I will write a paper and make a pidcast to describe the Tradition of the Church, as I did with the issue of the soul after death when some were denying the Tradition on that issue. I shall say no more myself on this thread.
Can you please point as to where I can access the paper on the soul after death?
[quote author=sifaing link=topic=13480.msg157788#msg157788 date=1342542900] It seems like this discussion has become more about persons than about the discussioon.
Fr. Peter, for your sake and for everyone else's sake, I would ask you to just close the discussion.
No one is questioning Fr. Peter's scholarly credentials. But people need to realize that there are other scholars on the front line with EO who disagree with what seems to be the consensus in this discussion. They also reference the fathers and tradition. So they cannot be simply judged as innovative like Some have done here.
No sources have been referenced clearly. So I don't know what people are saying is VERY clear evidence, b/c at this point nothing is clear.
Again Fr. Peter, so that no one falls into temptation, please close this discussion.
You can go through the fact that the fathers post-chalcedon did not receive by Chrismation there.
The has a joint statement that Copts and EO can go from one tradition to the other freely and without interference to have a joint household in marriage. The method of this transfer is not Baptism. This agreement only applies to Egypt, but if the EO shouldn't be rebaptised there, they shouldn't be here.
H.G. Anba Youssef's Q&A clearly stated that EO are not rebaptised.
This statement, signed by H.H. Pope Sheounda, clearly says we consider the EO Orthodox: http://orthodoxunity.org/state05.php . It clearly states that not all synods have agreed that both sides are Orthodox, but our Synod has agreed that both are.
There is more than enough evidence that the consistent policy of the Church from the time of Chalcedon has been not to baptise those coming over from the Chalcedonian party. Even if the EO are as wrong as they were then, we should not rebaptise them. But they are not. They amended and reinterpreted the weaknesses of Chalcedon in subsequent councils, and we have recognized in the statement above that the Christology issue has been healed.
Who are these scholars who say that the EO should be rebaptised, or even that they are not Orthodox?
Being a clergyman does not immediately make one a scholar. I have read enough that I doubt they could convince me of their position if they exist. But no reference to them has yet been provided to even examine.
There are hardliners on the EO side that claim we are not Orthodox. This does not make them heterodox, it just means they buy in to the propaganda against us saying we are heretics, that doesn't make them heretics, it makes them mistaken about us.
There is ample evidence in history, right up to the modern joint statements and agreements, that the EO should never be received into the Coptic Church by Baptism. I will not argue it any further. It is clear enough for anyone who wishes to to open their eyes and see. Anyone who refuses to see because they cannot fathom an ecclesiology that would allow both sides to be Orthodox, both to be part of the One Church, without recognizing each other due to misunderstanding and politics, despite the clear precedent for such events in history, which have been healed without rebaptism... such a person will not be swayed by any evidence or logic, so there is no point for me to continue to argue.
The EO and the OO are two different Churches with different faiths. The EO rejects the OO position on Christology since 451 AD. They do not consider us to have the same faith as theirs.
We, on the other hand, do not recognize Chalcedon and the councils that came after it. They have anathemas against us and so we do against them.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13480.msg157702#msg157702 date=1342388030] [quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157636#msg157636 date=1342202580] take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus. Leo, is NOT a Saint!!!
I know. That is why I put the "St" in brackets (St.) above. He is a Saint to the Eastern Orthodox, but not the Oriental Orthodoxo.
I wonder how that will be dealt with when fully unity is realized. Will his canonization as Saint by the EO then be binding on the OO?
Pilate is a saint in the Ethiopian Church but not in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. It already works like that. There are lots of saints that I venerate that Egyptians have never heard of. There has never been a universal calendar of saints.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157801#msg157801 date=1342577471] The EO and the OO are two different Churches with different faiths. The EO rejects the OO position on Christology since 451 AD. They do not consider us to have the same faith as theirs.
We, on the other hand, do not recognize Chalcedon and the councils that came after it. They have anathemas against us and so we do against them.
Is not the whole matter based on whether or not there are two essences in Christ? Both they and us agree that Christ is of two essences united in 1 Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate.
If you ask the Chalcedonians if they agree that Jesus the Christ is fully God, lacking nothing in His Divinity and fully Man, lacking nothing in His Humanity, except sin, they will agree as we do.
Despite the differing expressions of dyophysitism and miaphysitism and their sometimes problematic implications in describing the great mystery of Godliness of how God was manifest in the flesh, which may not be completely fathomably described in human words, the faith IS indeed, as His Reverence Father Peter stated.
The orthodoxinfo.com website seems to repeately base their version of chalcedonianism on the simple fact that we reject Chalcedon and does not really look at the reasons why we reject it. For the owners of that cite, Everything stated by the council of Chalcedon is like a God-given axiom. If you reject the council, you are not Orthodox proper, according to them. However, it is a very shallow argument, and I hope we don't make a similar one. The politicts involved and the misunderstandings of physis and hypostasis and prosopon, and ousia between the different cultures at the time is not really taken into account by that website. There is a great article by Fr. John Romanides that is very sympathetic to our Oriental Orthodox view and he states in one of them that in effect we do accept all the substance of the 7 councils. This may be true even though we do not accept the politics and misdefinitions by which those councils took place.
The bottom line is. When WE examine their faith, we find that it is the same faith as ours, REGARDLESS of whether some of them understand that or not.
With respect to Christology, it is important I think to use very precise definitions to avoid confusion about the words "nature". For Unity, we as Oriental Orthodox should come out boldly and state first hand that we believe that in the ONe Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate, there are Two Distinct Ousiai or Essences. This is the key to Christological agreement, regardless of what Physis may have meant to St. Cyril, St. Dioscorus, and Leo, etc and others in 451 AD.
Since we both condemn the heresies of Nestorianism, Eutechianism/Monophysitism, Appolinarianism, and I think we also reject Monotheletism in its strictist form (correct me if I'm wrong), then how can our faith be different Christologically? It is the same.
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157799#msg157799 date=1342575559] H.G. Anba Youssef's Q&A clearly stated that EO are not rebaptised..... Who are these scholars who say that the EO should be rebaptised, or even that they are not Orthodox?.... There is ample evidence in history, right up to the modern joint statements and agreements, that the EO should never be received into the Coptic Church by Baptism. I will not argue it any further. It is clear enough for anyone who wishes to to open their eyes and see. Anyone who refuses to see because they cannot fathom an ecclesiology that would allow both sides to be Orthodox, both to be part of the One Church, without recognizing each other due to misunderstanding and politics, despite the clear precedent for such events in history, which have been healed without rebaptism...
Very well said Jonathan, I would take it a step farther. This information is taken from here. It is a Protestant source but I'm only focusing on historical facts.
"The Council of Laodicea, in or about 375 AD, decreed the baptism of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quatrodecimens was to be accepted but the Phrygians, or Motanists were to be rebaptized...The second general (ecumenical) council of Constantinople in 381 decreed that the baptism of the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novations, Quatrodecimens, and Apollonarians were to be accepted, but not Eunomians, Montanists, and Sabellians....The Council of Trullo (7th century) added Nestorians to the list of those whose baptism was accepted and Paulianists, Manichees, Valentinans and Marcionists to those who were to be rebaptized."
If Arians, Nestorians, and Apollonarians were readmitted without baptism, how can we ever claim Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonians (who are not heretics) must be rebaptized? None of the ancient fathers or current bishops advocate this. It's absurd. This quote also addresses comments made about Leo and Dioscorus. If it is not unimaginable that Arians and Nestorians could become Orthodox without baptism, why is it so abominable that Leo becomes a saint in our Orthodox church? None of the Oriental Orthodox want to venerate Leo because of the current understanding of Chalcedon. But it doesn't mean we must maintain an anathema of Leo for our Orthodoxy to be valid. Are we not creating issues and obstacles contrary to the ancient and current Orthodox faith that have already been adjudicated?
[quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157823#msg157823 date=1342639299] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13480.msg157702#msg157702 date=1342388030] [quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157636#msg157636 date=1342202580] take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus. Leo, is NOT a Saint!!!
I know. That is why I put the "St" in brackets (St.) above. He is a Saint to the Eastern Orthodox, but not the Oriental Orthodoxo.
I wonder how that will be dealt with when fully unity is realized. Will his canonization as Saint by the EO then be binding on the OO? Forgive my zeolotry. I was not trying to upbraid you. I was simply trying to make it clear that he isn't a Saint in the Church. I did not realize your intenton. In any case, if this unon happens and the anathemas are lifted, I would still never dream of venerating Leo.
The baptism of the heretics, including the Arians and Nestorians, were never accepted in the church. Those who were originally Orthodox and strayed away were not rebaptized for the baptism is performed only one time.
EO saints are not saints within the OO Church for their false belief. They are considered heretics within the OO Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157836#msg157836 date=1342674714] The baptism of Arians, Nestorians were never accepted in the Church. Those who were baptized Orthodox and strayed, they were admitted with no baptism.
That is contradicting the council of Constantinople.
7th canon of Constantinople
Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians—these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: "Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit". But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects — since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians — we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them.
Comments
take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus.
Leo, is NOT a Saint!!!
Metropolitan Bishoy is not the authority on inter-Church relations. The Holy Synod is and it has already stated that the Eastern Orthodox have the same faith as us.
To chrismate an EO is an offence against our Tradition. To baptise one is against everything Orthodoxy confesses.
I hope that the BOC will continue to resist innovations and seek to preserve the authentic Tradition of the Church of Alexandria.
The last time I checked we were a Church that obeyed the Fathers. They could nit be clearer. To anoint, let alone baptise, an EO is forbidden and is described by St Severus as abominable.
The EO has different faith than the OO and thus their sacraments are rejected by the OO.
Ian not sure that the point of different faith is getting across.
The EO has different faith than the OO and thus their sacraments are rejected by the OO.
Tell that to every single OO Holy synod out there, as all of them (AFAIK) have ratified the agreed statements.
The quote by St. Seuerus has not been provided in context, so no Fr. Peter, I am sorry, it is not clear.
The OO synods have ratified the agreement, the EO have not. There is no such thing as a one way agreement. We can ratify all we want, however, it is not in effect until they sign it as well.
I vote to either start teaching by providing sources with references which we can look up. Otherwise, this discussion is proving to be fruitless and useless, so someone please shut it down.
P.S. And yes I do acknowledge that the two Churches are not in official/canonical communion as of yet.
P.P.S. And I am not saying that we share the same faith and that they have true sacraments absolutely and definitively (though I personally believe this is the case), all I am saying is that our Patriarchates believe they have true Sacraments and they believe we share the same faith and so it really is pointless in saying "their sacraments are rejected by the OO" because they are clearly accepted by the OO at the highest levels of our Hierarchy. I would, however, agree with sifaing in saying that the implications of these agreed statements cannot fully take effect in terms of reunion until the EO Patriarchates ratify them.
It was the intention of all of our Synods to make this statement and they all have.
If you do not believe me when I speak of the teaching of St Severus, of St Timothy the Great, and of the constant practice of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria until the 20th century then you will not believe any sources I provide.
The Agreed Statement clearly and explicitly states that we believe the EO to have the same faith as us.
It was the intention of all of our Synods to make this statement and they all have.
If you do not believe me when I speak of the teaching of St Severus, of St Timothy the Great, and of the constant practice of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria until the 20th century then you will not believe any sources I provide.
The agreement was only signed by us, the OO. When the agreement was discussed within the EO, it was REJECTED. Why? Because they have a different faith than ours.
So, even though it is signed by us, it is signed according to a different faith than what the E O holds. This means that there is no agreement and we have different faiths.
In my experience, EO have come to the Coptic Church through Chrismation only and not baptism.
Also, I looked at the website of the Southern Diocese of the United States where His Grace Bishop Youssef has a question and answer section.
I found the following question/answer in this section:
Question: Does a Catholic or a Protestant (Lutheran) have to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church to be able to marry in the Orthodox Church?
Answer: A Catholic or a Protestant of any denomination (not just Lutheran) has to be baptized in the Coptic Orthodox faith. The Coptic Church has recognized the holy Mystery of Baptism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and the (Indian) Malankara). In addition, we have recently made an agreement with the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept each other's Baptism. One is baptized according to the faith of the Church he/she is joining. Since the Protestant do not believe in the same doctrines we believe in, (Infant baptism, Holy Sacraments, the position of St. Mary and her perpetual virginity, icons, candles, etc.) their baptism is not recognized in our Church. (emphasis is mine).
Source: http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1109&catid=45
I obviously do not speak for His Grace and I do not mean to misinterpret his answer but this answer states we accept the baptism from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seems to support my personal experience and the statement of Jonathan and Fr. Peter.
Please forgive me if I am wrong and if I am further confusing the issue.
emiles
Your position is not only contrary to the Tradition but it is illogical.
Person A says that this is an Apple
Person B says that this is an Apple
Person B says that Person A says it is an Apple
Person A says that Person B says it is an Orange
Person A and Person B both agree that it is an Apple. They have the same belief.
It is irrelevant how they view each other. We have said that the EO have the same faith. You are obliged to accept this as a universal Synodal statement. It is utterly and completely irrelevant how the EO view us. Though clearly most view us also as Orthodox. The official statement of all the Holy Synods says that they have the same faith and it is not affected by their view of us.
Both chrismation, and especially baptism, of EO are absolutely forbidden by the Tradition. To view the EO as being other than Orthodox with the same faith as us is to reject the teaching of all the Holy Synods and of Pope Shenouda.
but when they were made, the EO did not consider us fully orthodox so we were not invited to give an opinion.
if we had been we would have agreed with most of it and fixed / discussed the few bits they didn't explain well enough in our opinion.
the only council the OO disagree with is the one that concluded the OO were not orthodox (would be difficult to agree this!) which was the '4th council' of chalcedon.
so there is not that much to fix.
but we must wait and pray for the bishops and clergy and theologians to make progress in this area.
the way we (non theologian, non clergy members) can help is by making good friends from the 'other' group, going to their services (without taking communion just yet except in special cases) and by posting our progress on forums.
so it is great to see u coming here and promoting orthodox unity and i hope to c u again soon
:)
I liken this attitude with a sinner whom we tell you are not a sinner and you are in communion with the Church, but he insists that he is a sinner and he rejects the communion.
Having said that, i entirely agree with Fortunatus. I think many of you seem to overlook that in dealing with the ever reverent Fr. Peter, you are speaking to a man who has been on the front lines of the discussions (as evidenced by his recent attending an oriental orthodox-anglican dialogue. I like to follow Abouna's life via facebook :D) and has quite close access to His Eminence Abba Seraphim, a scholar of the highest standing and a member of the Holy Synod.
Fr. Peter himself is one of the greatest scholars (ESPECIALLY on this debate) on the planet in my humble opinion and it is perhaps a matter of fact that there is no greater scholar of the Theology, Christology, and teaching of our holy father St. Severus, on the planet.
I would heed caution when treating Father Peter as if his reverence is 'some guy' off the street. Fr. Peter is a scholar of the highest rank and his is the authoritative opinion on the matter, not our interpretation of today's practice (many of which are in error as Fr. Peter has pointed out, and St. Severus is VERY clear on the point of re-anointing). I wish that i would be able to sit at the feet of Fr. Peter and learn for a lifetime but i think God has more meaningful plans for his reverence. :P
I do not mean to offend, just to remind everyone what caliber of individual we are dealing with in Fr. Peter and we are blessed to have him. May the blessing of his service be for us all (pray for me Father!).
I beseech all of you for your prayers for an unworthy servant.
imikhail I really respect a great deal of your posts and you have personally added much to me in the time i have been on tasbeha.org. (this is also directed to some of the comments of the poster sifaing).
Having said that, i entirely agree with Fortunatus. I think many of you seem to overlook that in dealing with the ever reverent Fr. Peter, you are speaking to a man who has been on the front lines of the discussions (as evidenced by his recent attending an oriental orthodox-anglican dialogue. I like to follow Abouna's life via facebook :D) and has quite close access to His Eminence Abba Seraphim, a scholar of the highest standing and a member of the Holy Synod.
Fr. Peter himself is one of the greatest scholars (ESPECIALLY on this debate) on the planet in my humble opinion and it is perhaps a matter of fact that there is no greater scholar of the Theology, Christology, and teaching of our holy father St. Severus, on the planet.
I would heed caution when treating Father Peter as if his reverence is 'some guy' off the street. Fr. Peter is a scholar of the highest rank and his is the authoritative opinion on the matter, not our interpretation of today's practice (many of which are in error as Fr. Peter has pointed out, and St. Severus is VERY clear on the point of re-anointing). I wish that i would be able to sit at the feet of Fr. Peter and learn for a lifetime but i think God has more meaningful plans for his reverence. :P
I do not mean to offend, just to remind everyone what caliber of individual we are dealing with in Fr. Peter and we are blessed to have him. May the blessing of his service be for us all (pray for me Father!).
I beseech all of you for your prayers for an unworthy servant.
I am in direct contact with the clergy who are involved in the dialogue with the EO. I am just reiterating what they said.
It is up to you or any clergy to believe however they want. The bottom line is whether our belief does reflect genuinely the Church's.
The bottom line is whether our belief does reflect genuinely the Church's.
Not it isn't. The bottom line is whether or not theirs does. No one has questioned whether ours does.
Fr. Peter, for your sake and for everyone else's sake, I would ask you to just close the discussion.
No one is questioning Fr. Peter's scholarly credentials. But people need to realize that there are other scholars on the front line with EO who disagree with what seems to be the consensus in this discussion. They also reference the fathers and tradition. So they cannot be simply judged as innovative like Some have done here.
No sources have been referenced clearly. So I don't know what people are saying is VERY clear evidence, b/c at this point nothing is clear.
Again Fr. Peter, so that no one falls into temptation, please close this discussion.
I am glad that the majority of the clergy are disciples of the fathers who gave up their early lives to preserve the faith.
The Greeks are the ones who chose not to accept our position just like they had done in 451 AD.
We will gladly keep the our fathers' faith, if they like to join, they are welcome.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157793#msg157793 date=1342565488]
I do not wish to argue or present the fathers for criticism and so I will write a paper and make a pidcast to describe the Tradition of the Church, as I did with the issue of the soul after death when some were denying the Tradition on that issue. I shall say no more myself on this thread.
Can you please point as to where I can access the paper on the soul after death?
Thx
http://britishorthodox.org/glastonburyreview/issue-121-the-intermediate-state-of-the-soul/
It seems like this discussion has become more about persons than about the discussioon.
Fr. Peter, for your sake and for everyone else's sake, I would ask you to just close the discussion.
No one is questioning Fr. Peter's scholarly credentials. But people need to realize that there are other scholars on the front line with EO who disagree with what seems to be the consensus in this discussion. They also reference the fathers and tradition. So they cannot be simply judged as innovative like Some have done here.
No sources have been referenced clearly. So I don't know what people are saying is VERY clear evidence, b/c at this point nothing is clear.
Again Fr. Peter, so that no one falls into temptation, please close this discussion.
Who are these other scholars?
Fr. Peter's book can be found right here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/father-peter-farrington/orthodox-christology/paperback/product-10969273.html
You can go through the fact that the fathers post-chalcedon did not receive by Chrismation there.
The has a joint statement that Copts and EO can go from one tradition to the other freely and without interference to have a joint household in marriage. The method of this transfer is not Baptism. This agreement only applies to Egypt, but if the EO shouldn't be rebaptised there, they shouldn't be here.
H.G. Anba Youssef's Q&A clearly stated that EO are not rebaptised.
This statement, signed by H.H. Pope Sheounda, clearly says we consider the EO Orthodox: http://orthodoxunity.org/state05.php . It clearly states that not all synods have agreed that both sides are Orthodox, but our Synod has agreed that both are.
There is more than enough evidence that the consistent policy of the Church from the time of Chalcedon has been not to baptise those coming over from the Chalcedonian party. Even if the EO are as wrong as they were then, we should not rebaptise them. But they are not. They amended and reinterpreted the weaknesses of Chalcedon in subsequent councils, and we have recognized in the statement above that the Christology issue has been healed.
Who are these scholars who say that the EO should be rebaptised, or even that they are not Orthodox?
Being a clergyman does not immediately make one a scholar. I have read enough that I doubt they could convince me of their position if they exist. But no reference to them has yet been provided to even examine.
Even Anba Bishoy says "We should explain to our peoples that both families of Churches have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith." http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CHRSTAGR.doc
There are hardliners on the EO side that claim we are not Orthodox. This does not make them heterodox, it just means they buy in to the propaganda against us saying we are heretics, that doesn't make them heretics, it makes them mistaken about us.
There is ample evidence in history, right up to the modern joint statements and agreements, that the EO should never be received into the Coptic Church by Baptism. I will not argue it any further. It is clear enough for anyone who wishes to to open their eyes and see. Anyone who refuses to see because they cannot fathom an ecclesiology that would allow both sides to be Orthodox, both to be part of the One Church, without recognizing each other due to misunderstanding and politics, despite the clear precedent for such events in history, which have been healed without rebaptism... such a person will not be swayed by any evidence or logic, so there is no point for me to continue to argue.
We, on the other hand, do not recognize Chalcedon and the councils that came after it. They have anathemas against us and so we do against them.
[quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157636#msg157636 date=1342202580]
take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus.
Leo, is NOT a Saint!!!
I know. That is why I put the "St" in brackets (St.) above. He is a Saint to the Eastern Orthodox, but not the Oriental Orthodoxo.
I wonder how that will be dealt with when fully unity is realized. Will his canonization as Saint by the EO then be binding on the OO?
The EO and the OO are two different Churches with different faiths. The EO rejects the OO position on Christology since 451 AD. They do not consider us to have the same faith as theirs.
We, on the other hand, do not recognize Chalcedon and the councils that came after it. They have anathemas against us and so we do against them.
Is not the whole matter based on whether or not there are two essences in Christ? Both they and us agree that Christ is of two essences united in 1 Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate.
If you ask the Chalcedonians if they agree that Jesus the Christ is fully God, lacking nothing in His Divinity and fully Man, lacking nothing in His Humanity, except sin, they will agree as we do.
Despite the differing expressions of dyophysitism and miaphysitism and their sometimes problematic implications in describing the great mystery of Godliness of how God was manifest in the flesh, which may not be completely fathomably described in human words, the faith IS indeed, as His Reverence Father Peter stated.
The orthodoxinfo.com website seems to repeately base their version of chalcedonianism on the simple fact that we reject Chalcedon and does not really look at the reasons why we reject it. For the owners of that cite, Everything stated by the council of Chalcedon is like a God-given axiom. If you reject the council, you are not Orthodox proper, according to them. However, it is a very shallow argument, and I hope we don't make a similar one. The politicts involved and the misunderstandings of physis and hypostasis and prosopon, and ousia between the different cultures at the time is not really taken into account by that website. There is a great article by Fr. John Romanides that is very sympathetic to our Oriental Orthodox view and he states in one of them that in effect we do accept all the substance of the 7 councils. This may be true even though we do not accept the politics and misdefinitions by which those councils took place.
The bottom line is. When WE examine their faith, we find that it is the same faith as ours, REGARDLESS of whether some of them understand that or not.
With respect to Christology, it is important I think to use very precise definitions to avoid confusion about the words "nature". For Unity, we as Oriental Orthodox should come out boldly and state first hand that we believe that in the ONe Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate, there are Two Distinct Ousiai or Essences. This is the key to Christological agreement, regardless of what Physis may have meant to St. Cyril, St. Dioscorus, and Leo, etc and others in 451 AD.
Since we both condemn the heresies of Nestorianism, Eutechianism/Monophysitism, Appolinarianism, and I think we also reject Monotheletism in its strictist form (correct me if I'm wrong), then how can our faith be different Christologically? It is the same.
H.G. Anba Youssef's Q&A clearly stated that EO are not rebaptised.....
Who are these scholars who say that the EO should be rebaptised, or even that they are not Orthodox?....
There is ample evidence in history, right up to the modern joint statements and agreements, that the EO should never be received into the Coptic Church by Baptism. I will not argue it any further. It is clear enough for anyone who wishes to to open their eyes and see. Anyone who refuses to see because they cannot fathom an ecclesiology that would allow both sides to be Orthodox, both to be part of the One Church, without recognizing each other due to misunderstanding and politics, despite the clear precedent for such events in history, which have been healed without rebaptism...
Very well said Jonathan,
I would take it a step farther. This information is taken from here. It is a Protestant source but I'm only focusing on historical facts.
"The Council of Laodicea, in or about 375 AD, decreed the baptism of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quatrodecimens was to be accepted but the Phrygians, or Motanists were to be rebaptized...The second general (ecumenical) council of Constantinople in 381 decreed that the baptism of the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novations, Quatrodecimens, and Apollonarians were to be accepted, but not Eunomians, Montanists, and Sabellians....The Council of Trullo (7th century) added Nestorians to the list of those whose baptism was accepted and Paulianists, Manichees, Valentinans and Marcionists to those who were to be rebaptized."
If Arians, Nestorians, and Apollonarians were readmitted without baptism, how can we ever claim Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonians (who are not heretics) must be rebaptized? None of the ancient fathers or current bishops advocate this. It's absurd. This quote also addresses comments made about Leo and Dioscorus. If it is not unimaginable that Arians and Nestorians could become Orthodox without baptism, why is it so abominable that Leo becomes a saint in our Orthodox church? None of the Oriental Orthodox want to venerate Leo because of the current understanding of Chalcedon. But it doesn't mean we must maintain an anathema of Leo for our Orthodoxy to be valid. Are we not creating issues and obstacles contrary to the ancient and current Orthodox faith that have already been adjudicated?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13480.msg157702#msg157702 date=1342388030]
[quote author=metouro link=topic=13480.msg157636#msg157636 date=1342202580]
take the icon of Pope (St.) Leo and replace it with an Icon of St. Dioscorus.
Leo, is NOT a Saint!!!
I know. That is why I put the "St" in brackets (St.) above. He is a Saint to the Eastern Orthodox, but not the Oriental Orthodoxo.
I wonder how that will be dealt with when fully unity is realized. Will his canonization as Saint by the EO then be binding on the OO?
Forgive my zeolotry. I was not trying to upbraid you. I was simply trying to make it clear that he isn't a Saint in the Church. I did not realize your intenton. In any case, if this unon happens and the anathemas are lifted, I would still never dream of venerating Leo.
EO saints are not saints within the OO Church for their false belief. They are considered heretics within the OO Church.
The baptism of Arians, Nestorians were never accepted in the Church. Those who were baptized Orthodox and strayed, they were admitted with no baptism.
That is contradicting the council of Constantinople.
7th canon of Constantinople
Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians—these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: "Seal of the gift of the holy Spirit". But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects — since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians — we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them.
Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN1.HTM#3